Trial courts, magistrates first line of defence for a harassed litigant; have a bigger duty than Supreme Court to protect fundamental rights Trial courts and magistrates are the first line of defence for a harassed and distraught litigant and have as much responsibility as the Supreme Court, if not more, in safeguarding fundamental rights of citizens, the apex court ruled on Monday (Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh). Trial courts not only have the power to merely decide on acquittal or conviction of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even before they reach the stage of trial by discharging the accused in fit cases, the Supreme Court said. “This would not only save judicial time that comes at the cost of public money, but would also protect the right to liberty that every person is entitled to under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, the trial Judges have as much, if not more, responsibility in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens of India as the highest court of this land,” the Court said. The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Justices Mohan M Shantanagoudar and R Subhash Reddy in an appeal filed against a decision of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed a plea for quashing of summons issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut against the Appellants. The genesis of the case was in a physical altercation that took place between the Appellants, and the Respondent No. 2 and his wife on August 5, 2012. The same day, Respondent No. 2 filed a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) against the Appellants alleging offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It was his case that the Appellants came to his house, beat him and his wife with iron rods, and threatened to kill them. The son of Appellant No. 1 also filed information the very same day which was registered as Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) with the Daurala Police Station, alleging offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506, IPC against the Respondent No. 2 and his wife. This Report made counter allegations that the Respondent No. 2 and his wife came to the Appellants’ house, beat them up with wooden sticks and iron rods, and threatened to kill their family. Five years later the Appellants filed an application under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Magistrate in April 2017, seeking permission for the police to investigate the NCR registered in 2012. The Magistrate directed that the NCR be registered as FIR. Consequently, investigation was conducted, and a charge sheet was filed against Respondent No. 2 and his wife for offences under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Subsequently, the Magistrate framed charges against Respondent No. 2 and his wife. Against this, Respondent No. 2 instituted a fresh private complaint against the Appellants under Section 200 of CrPC in respect of the very same incident that took place in 2012. In the private complaint, not only new allegations were added but also all allegations were different from the averments made in 2012. The Magistrate, however, issued process against the Appellants based on this private complaint, which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Judge. Plea challenging the same was dismissed by the High Court leading to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that filing a private complaint without any prelude, after a gap of six years from the date of giving information to the police, smacked of mala fides on the part of Respondent No. 2. The Court also noted that in the fresh complaint case, Respondent No. 2 “seems to have deliberately suppressed the material fact that a charge sheet was already filed in relation to the same incident, against him and his wife.” The Court further observed that permitting multiple complaints by the same party in respect of the same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or private complaint offence, will lead to the accused being entangled in numerous criminal proceedings “Respondent No. 2’s institution of the fresh complaint case in 2018 under Section 200 CrPC was a concerted effort to mislead the Magistrate with the oblique motive of harassing the Appellants with a frivolous and vexatious case against them,” the Court said. The Court also urged Magistrates to nip such litigation in bud. “The Trial Judge has a duty under the Constitution and the CrPC, to identify and dispose of frivolous litigation at an early stage by exercising, substantially and to the fullest extent, the powers conferred on him,” the judgment said. In this regard, reliance was placed on the 1992 Supreme Court judgment in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India. Frivolous litigation should not become the order of the day in India, the Court said. From misusing the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction of the Indian courts to abusing the criminal procedure for harassing their adversaries, the justice delivery system should not be used as a tool to fulfill personal vendetta, the Court emphasized. It, therefore, allowed the appeal and quashed the order of summons against the Appellant. Interestingly, the Court did not stop there. It invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash all criminal proceedings initiated by both Appellants and Respondent no. 2 in relation to the incident of 2012 “in the interests of giving quietus to these criminal proceedings arising out of a petty incident 9 years ago.” View Judgment
